J
jimmy
Guest
Jimmy B said:
What if 1 is 2, then 1+1=4.
- Status
What if 1 is 2, then 1+1=4.
J
jimmy
Guest
This is another great proof. The complexity of everything and the interdependance of everything is amazing. I am currently taking a physiology class, and it is amazing how everything depends on everything else to work.
M
miguel
Guest
The ultimate system engineering.
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
JMJ
Jimmy,
**Quote- “**What if 1 is 2, then 1+1=4.”
Thanks for your reply,
The Point I was attempting to make, had to do with a mathematical truth.
1+1 will always equal 2. This formula will never change because it is a truth. God represents truth.
If you didn’t know math and you were to take one object and placed it next to another object, there would then be two objects. If there was one planet in the universe and nothing else and you introduced another planet, then there would be two planets, not four planets, 1+1=2.
By the way, the sky is blue. I know you were just being funny. May god bless you, thanks again.
Yours in Christ
Jimmy,
**Quote- “**What if 1 is 2, then 1+1=4.”
Thanks for your reply,
The Point I was attempting to make, had to do with a mathematical truth.
1+1 will always equal 2. This formula will never change because it is a truth. God represents truth.
If you didn’t know math and you were to take one object and placed it next to another object, there would then be two objects. If there was one planet in the universe and nothing else and you introduced another planet, then there would be two planets, not four planets, 1+1=2.
By the way, the sky is blue. I know you were just being funny. May god bless you, thanks again.
Yours in Christ
J
jimmy
Guest
Jimmy B said:
Thankyou for your points, they are all very good. I like the John Nash ones and I like the end of one of the quotes where it says, ***The only truths are math and God.” ***
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
JMJ
Quotes from Albert Einstein:
***“Yes, we have to divide up our time like that, between our politics and our equations. But to me our equations are far more important, for politics are only a matter of present concern. A mathematical equation stands forever.” ***
"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts."
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."
Yours in Christ,
Quotes from Albert Einstein:
***“Yes, we have to divide up our time like that, between our politics and our equations. But to me our equations are far more important, for politics are only a matter of present concern. A mathematical equation stands forever.” ***
"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts."
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."
Yours in Christ,
E
edwinG
Guest
Jimmy B:
Your thread has had some great posts and is one of the best witnessing threads I have read. IT shows that God is everywhere and each of us can find Him in our life.
For me
God exists because I have His Holy Spirit. Now how could God not exist. Where does His Holy Spirit come from if He does not exist.
2ndly. During the night and sometimes during the day, I find myself singing and thinking of Jesus and pondering and meditation on Him. This is the leading of the Holy Spirit who was poured out on the world ONLY after Jesus, birth, life , death , resurrection and rightousness were established. That He, the Holy Spirit is so readily available is proof that He has been poured out and proof of Christ in us, who is God.
The Holy Spirit is the witness to God , Christ and Himself, complete in Himself.
Walk in love
Grow in Christhttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif
edwinG
Hi Jimmy B,
Your thread has had some great posts and is one of the best witnessing threads I have read. IT shows that God is everywhere and each of us can find Him in our life.
For me
God exists because I have His Holy Spirit. Now how could God not exist. Where does His Holy Spirit come from if He does not exist.
2ndly. During the night and sometimes during the day, I find myself singing and thinking of Jesus and pondering and meditation on Him. This is the leading of the Holy Spirit who was poured out on the world ONLY after Jesus, birth, life , death , resurrection and rightousness were established. That He, the Holy Spirit is so readily available is proof that He has been poured out and proof of Christ in us, who is God.
The Holy Spirit is the witness to God , Christ and Himself, complete in Himself.
Walk in love
Grow in Christhttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif
edwinG
B
BibleReader
Guest
Kevin Walker:
The problem with Aquinas’ arguments is that they fail of their own weight. The thing proven, God, always violates the premise. Look at the first sentence of the posted version of the prime mover argument: “Nothing can move itself.” Since the thing “proven,” God, is self-moving, and doesn’t have a prior mover, then God Himself violates the premise and so the premise is untrue. The argument fails.
To those who go crazy when I point out this elementary reason why so many are unconvinced by Aquinas’ “proofs,” I answer, “Listen. That is the way it should be. When we say that God is ‘ineffable,’ we mean that our minds can’t go from here, where we are, to there, where He is. If we could devise a ‘compelling’ proof that He is, our minds, in at least some sense, would be God’s equal.”
I think that faith in God is true faith. It is not the last item in a syllogism, the thing after the equal sign. I think that we ask, “Is there a God?,” and the Spirit answers, with the “tiny whispering sound” that awed Elijah at the cave, 1 Kings 19:12-13, “I am here.” Grace makes our belief in that answer as strong as iron. Revelation, including through our inspired Church, fills in the details. Amen.
When people say, “‘Prove’ that God exists!,” they mean, “Show me something compelling, which forces me to conclude that He is ‘up there’!”
The problem with Aquinas’ arguments is that they fail of their own weight. The thing proven, God, always violates the premise. Look at the first sentence of the posted version of the prime mover argument: “Nothing can move itself.” Since the thing “proven,” God, is self-moving, and doesn’t have a prior mover, then God Himself violates the premise and so the premise is untrue. The argument fails.
To those who go crazy when I point out this elementary reason why so many are unconvinced by Aquinas’ “proofs,” I answer, “Listen. That is the way it should be. When we say that God is ‘ineffable,’ we mean that our minds can’t go from here, where we are, to there, where He is. If we could devise a ‘compelling’ proof that He is, our minds, in at least some sense, would be God’s equal.”
I think that faith in God is true faith. It is not the last item in a syllogism, the thing after the equal sign. I think that we ask, “Is there a God?,” and the Spirit answers, with the “tiny whispering sound” that awed Elijah at the cave, 1 Kings 19:12-13, “I am here.” Grace makes our belief in that answer as strong as iron. Revelation, including through our inspired Church, fills in the details. Amen.
J
john_doran
Guest
i think you’ve got this a bit wrong: aquinas’ god does not move himself because nothing can do that, not even god - god is, in fact, pure act. in essence, aquinas’ proof demonstrates the existence of a god that is eternally “moving”.
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
JMJ
Psalms 139:17-18****
17**. “How precious to me are your designs, O God; how vast the sum of them!”**
18.** *“Were I to count, they would outnumber the sands; to finish, I would need eternity.” ***
Yours in Christ,
Psalms 139:17-18****
17**. “How precious to me are your designs, O God; how vast the sum of them!”**
18.** *“Were I to count, they would outnumber the sands; to finish, I would need eternity.” ***
Yours in Christ,
K
Kevin_Walker
Guest
Hi Biblereader,
Nice piece of reasoning. Actually I quoted Moses Maimonides (1135-1204) for this prime mover argument and not St.Thomas Aquinas, since I wanted to explore the earlier theologians who were to influence St. Thomas Aquinas.
This Prime Mover argument does have a true premise “Nothing Can Move Itself” when you consider the context in which it was reasoned by the famous Jewish theologian:
Given the influence Aristotle had on the ancient world, it is no wonder that the Jewish scholars would also be heavily influenced, thus Aristotelean physics were applied ultimately in the 10th & llth centuries to prove the existence of God. “The existence of God is proved directly from physics without the mediation of the doctrine of creation. Motion proves a mover, and to avoid an infinite regress we must posit an unmoved mover, that is, a first mover who is not himself moved at the same time.”
Maimonides postulated: “Let us frankly adopt tentatively, he says, the Aristotelian idea of the eternity of the world,* i.e*., the eternity of matter and motion. We can then prove the existence of an unmoved mover who is pure spirit, for none but a pure spirit can have an infinite force such as is manifested in the eternal motion of the world.”
“Thus Maimonides accepted provisionally the eternity of matter and motion, but provisionally only.”
The flaw you discovered was a methodological technique by Moses Maimonides to avoid an infinite regress.
[Avoiding the ‘infinite regress’ in the 10th-11th centuries is interesting, since Jan Leukaceiwicz in his ‘Many Valued Logic’ (and the founder of the History of Logic) thought infinite regresses to be O.K.]
Christian medieval thought can be seen as a continuation of the Patristic period under Platonic and neo-Platonic influence. The increase in influence of Aristotelian knowlege was sudden in the latter 12th and early 13th centuries through the Crusades, through Moorish influences in Spain, with the Saracens in Sicily, and through Jewish translators and mediators Aristotle invaded Europe and influenced Christian theology - St. Thomas Aquinas was one result of this influence.
The topic of motion, adopted by Maimonides, was no doubt used by St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century who give it a special place in his work “Summa Contra Gentiles”. St. Thomas Aquinas and Albertus Magnus undertook a study of Aristotle with a view to harmonizing the philosopher’s teachings with Christian dogma. And it is suggested that in this effort, Moses Maimonides was used by St. Thomas Aquinas as a model.
From notes taken in my recent History of the Catholic Church seminar.
B
BibleReader
Guest
john doran:
Prove, “Nothing can move itself.”
(2) Additionally, Why is this wrong?: If you remove God from the premise because He is neither “nothing” nor “something,” but instead is something which is NOT “something” and also not “nothing” and instead “is” “something-which-is-not-something” AND which “is” completely different than “something,” so that the premise is irrelevant to Him, then the proof itself is irrelevant to Him.
(3) Also, God can’t COMPLETELY lack “something-ness,” because if we ARE “something” – in other words, we have the quality of Heidegger’s “Dasein-ness,” so to speak – then “Dasein-ness” had to be IN God to come OUT of Him, so that we were “create-able.”
Not to be insulting, but I can’t see where you live. It genuinely doesn’t compute. I.e., what the heck are you talking about?
By the way, God in Scripture attributes “Dasein-ness” – “being-there-ness” – to Himself when He gives Himself the name, “I AM WHO AM!” His very name is “made of” “Dasein-ness”!
In my opinion, it IS accurate, somehow, in a not-fully-comprehended, non-provable way, to say that “God is self-moving.”
(1) The problem is not the logic, but the premise. The premise is assumed. Prove the premise. Don’t assume it.
Prove, “Nothing can move itself.”
(2) Additionally, Why is this wrong?: If you remove God from the premise because He is neither “nothing” nor “something,” but instead is something which is NOT “something” and also not “nothing” and instead “is” “something-which-is-not-something” AND which “is” completely different than “something,” so that the premise is irrelevant to Him, then the proof itself is irrelevant to Him.
(3) Also, God can’t COMPLETELY lack “something-ness,” because if we ARE “something” – in other words, we have the quality of Heidegger’s “Dasein-ness,” so to speak – then “Dasein-ness” had to be IN God to come OUT of Him, so that we were “create-able.”
Not to be insulting, but I can’t see where you live. It genuinely doesn’t compute. I.e., what the heck are you talking about?
By the way, God in Scripture attributes “Dasein-ness” – “being-there-ness” – to Himself when He gives Himself the name, “I AM WHO AM!” His very name is “made of” “Dasein-ness”!
In my opinion, it IS accurate, somehow, in a not-fully-comprehended, non-provable way, to say that “God is self-moving.”
S
Steve_Andersen
Guest
Jimmy B:
I believe becasue the alternative is…pointless
you don’t know…that is why they call it faith
I believe becasue the alternative is…pointless
K
Kevin_Walker
Guest
quote=BibleReader The problem is not the logic, but the premise. The premise is assumed. Prove the premise. Don’t assume it.
Prove, “Nothing can move itself.”
[/quote]
Hi Biblereader,
You’re correct that the premise *“Nothing can move itself” *was the accepted assumption by 10th thru 13th century philosophers and theologians still heavily influenced by Aristotle.
But in the world of science, isn’t Newton’s first law of motion: That a body at rest tends to remain at rest; proof that the physics based Prime Mover argument Nothing can move itself, is true?
Prove, “Nothing can move itself.”
[/quote]
Hi Biblereader,
You’re correct that the premise *“Nothing can move itself” *was the accepted assumption by 10th thru 13th century philosophers and theologians still heavily influenced by Aristotle.
But in the world of science, isn’t Newton’s first law of motion: That a body at rest tends to remain at rest; proof that the physics based Prime Mover argument Nothing can move itself, is true?
J
john_doran
Guest
quote=BibleReader The problem is not the logic, but the premise.
[/quote]
that wasn’t your original point, which was that the argument is invalid.
look, you claimed that the conclusion of aquinas’ argument is that god moves himself, which violates the premise stating “nothing can move itself”.
i am merely pointing out that aquinas does not, in fact, say that god moves himself. which makes your own argument about aquinas’ proof, false. at least your initial argument.
it’s wrong because aquinas doesn’t say what you say he says: he doesn’t say that god moves himself.
s’all.
[/quote]
that wasn’t your original point, which was that the argument is invalid.
look, you claimed that the conclusion of aquinas’ argument is that god moves himself, which violates the premise stating “nothing can move itself”.
i am merely pointing out that aquinas does not, in fact, say that god moves himself. which makes your own argument about aquinas’ proof, false. at least your initial argument.
there are always assumed premises in any argument
Prove, “every premise in an argument requires proving”.
i assume by “this”, you mean your initial argument…
it’s wrong because aquinas doesn’t say what you say he says: he doesn’t say that god moves himself.
s’all.
you’ve lost me. completely.
you’re asking me?
fair enough. but you weren’t originally venturing your own opinion - you were ascribing it to aquinas. and you were wrong.
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
JMJ
john doran ,
s’all.
Quote:
(3) Also, God can’t COMPLETELY lack “something-ness,” because if we ARE “something” – in other words, we have the quality of Heidegger’s “Dasein-ness,” so to speak – then “Dasein-ness” had to be IN God to come OUT of Him, so that we were “create-able.”
you’ve lost me. completely.
I hope this helps, research;
German philosopher Martin Heidegger (1889-1976)
**Heidegger’s Dasein and the Liberal Conception of the Self **
Heidegger’s conception of Dasein with liberalism as a political philosophy, focusing in particular on Heidegger’s conception of Mitsein or being-with.
Yours in Christ,
john doran ,
s’all.
Quote:
(3) Also, God can’t COMPLETELY lack “something-ness,” because if we ARE “something” – in other words, we have the quality of Heidegger’s “Dasein-ness,” so to speak – then “Dasein-ness” had to be IN God to come OUT of Him, so that we were “create-able.”
you’ve lost me. completely.
I hope this helps, research;
German philosopher Martin Heidegger (1889-1976)
**Heidegger’s Dasein and the Liberal Conception of the Self **
Heidegger’s conception of Dasein with liberalism as a political philosophy, focusing in particular on Heidegger’s conception of Mitsein or being-with.
Yours in Christ,
M
maggiec
Guest
Jimmy B:
M
maggiec
Guest
I know my husband loves me. I can’t see it, touch it, smell it or taste it, but his love is more real than anything in my life has ever been or ever will be, except Jesus. I can’t see Him or touch Him but I know He is there, here, everywhere I am and I know He loves me.
Thats, faith, thats why I know.
maggiec
Thats, faith, thats why I know.
maggiec
J
John_Russell_Jr
Guest
If we have this concept of an infinitely perfect being. Then this being must exist. As it is most perfect to exist. As it is most perfect to be one. Therefore God must be one. For if there were more than one God they would have to be different. Otherwise they would be one if they were all the same. If they were different then that would indicate a lack of perfection in one or more Gods.So God must exist and be one.
H
hurdlr23
Guest
I think that I have a very simple answer to all of these logic, mathematics, and science claims of God. As I see it, you have to make assumptions before you can continue with this theory of proving God exists. One is that you indeed exist. There is no proof of this. Another is to prove that anything really exists. Rather than this, it is much easier to make a simple assumption of existence. (At least I think so. I still can’t rationalize any of this.)
Alright, done with the hard part. Now, assuming that we all do exist, we need to figure out how this came to be. Scientific theory is that electric storms some billion years ago animated life in clay, proven by some scientist in the fifties with labwork that produced life. My question is how did this come to be, because otherwise it works with me.
Now you go back to the big bang, where particles friction produced energy, and the universe forms. Where did the matter come from?
Either it was just there, and everything was just magically there for eternity without the existence of a diety of any sort, rather than complete nothingness.
God is a simpler explanation. Using Hackam’s Razor ( I think that’s what it’s called, someone else can check me on that), the simpler theory is usually right, so I’m going with God. QED
PS Sorry us math geeks are taking over this forum. It’s just one that we are more prone to like and have reasoned out.
Alright, done with the hard part. Now, assuming that we all do exist, we need to figure out how this came to be. Scientific theory is that electric storms some billion years ago animated life in clay, proven by some scientist in the fifties with labwork that produced life. My question is how did this come to be, because otherwise it works with me.
Now you go back to the big bang, where particles friction produced energy, and the universe forms. Where did the matter come from?
Either it was just there, and everything was just magically there for eternity without the existence of a diety of any sort, rather than complete nothingness.
God is a simpler explanation. Using Hackam’s Razor ( I think that’s what it’s called, someone else can check me on that), the simpler theory is usually right, so I’m going with God. QED
PS Sorry us math geeks are taking over this forum. It’s just one that we are more prone to like and have reasoned out.
- Status